Bad search warrant

[Dexflex]

Jurisdiction

California

So let say one shot is fired in an apt complex in one of the residents. None one knows which one. Two adjacent apts appears no one is home. One of them has history of dv in the past three years. The other has no history at all. Cops bust into apt with Dv history. No one is home. The find a bullet hole on the adjacent wall to the next door apt. They then bust into the other apt. No one is there but they find a gun. Later they get a search warrant that claims they spoke to the resident of the first apt they entered who gave permission to enter. which gave pc to enter the second apt. also they claimed a child was grazed buy the bullet. Also a lie. No one was in the apt. At all. So the warrant is a bad warrent. Rught? The lie( that they spoke to the tenant of the first apt). Without that lie do they have probable cause? And if the warrant is bad, is that a violation of civil rights , a criminal act, since the person arrested later was charged with child abuse ....and booked under said charge. Facing a trail for a crime he didnt commit. And is so should the items seized under that warrant be returned?

 

[Disabled Vet]

No, because they went on information they had at the time.

 

[cbg]

Do your own homework.

 

[Zigner]

Do your own homework.

The OP should do that, or talk (only) to his/her attorney, or mind his/her own business.

 

[army judge]

So let say one shot is fired in an apt complex in one of the residents. None one knows which one. Two adjacent apts appears no one is home. One of them has history of dv in the past three years. The other has no history at all. Cops bust into apt with Dv history. No one is home. The find a bullet hole on the adjacent wall to the next door apt. They then bust into the other apt. No one is there but they find a gun. Later they get a search warrant that claims they spoke to the resident of the first apt they entered who gave permission to enter. which gave pc to enter the second apt. also they claimed a child was grazed buy the bullet. Also a lie. No one was in the apt. At all. So the warrant is a bad warrent. Rught? The lie( that they spoke to the tenant of the first apt). Without that lie do they have probable cause? And if the warrant is bad, is that a violation of civil rights , a criminal act, since the person arrested later was charged with child abuse ....and booked under said charge. Facing a trail for a crime he didnt commit. And is so should the items seized under that warrant be returned?

My, my, my.

Kudos to the San Diego Police Department, their officers did some great police work in solving that crime and taking a violent thug off of the streets!!!

 

[adjusterjack]

one shot is fired in an apt complex in one of the residents.

I hope that resident has recovered.

Having a shot fired in him must have been painful.

 

[Red Kayak]

Without that lie do they have probable cause?

"Probable cause" = walks like a duck, talks like a duck, you may posit that it's a duck and proceed accordingly.

A bullet hole through a wall would indicate that a bullet went through the wall, and that a gun was fired in the neighborhood of the wall. I suspect that they have probable cause to follow the trajectory, especially if they are concerned that someone is injured.

If the person arrested did not commit the alleged crime, then they should work with their lawyer to counter the "proof" enough to create reasonable doubt.

 

[zddoodah]

I'll skip to the bottom line. Even if the civil rights of the resident of apartment #1 were violated, that will not allow the resident of apartment #2 to challenge the warrant.

If that doesn't answer your question, you're going to need to be MUCH more clear about what's happening and who's who.

 

[mightymoose]

So let say one shot is fired in an apt complex in one of the residents. None one knows which one.

Depending on the information the police had available at the time, it is very possible that they made entry into both residences legally without a warrant, especially if they believe someone could be injured inside.

Later they get a search warrant that claims they spoke to the resident...

It is not uncommon to obtain search warrants after making entry. Regardless if the statements is incorrect about the residence given permission, it is still very possible that the police entered under exigent circumstances that make the entry lawful.
Tearch warrant likely allowed the police to search further within the apartment for additional evidence that they could not search for without it.

So the warrant is a bad warrent. Rught?

Not necessarily. A warrant is not invalid just because it's supporting information turned out to be wrong. A warrant is valid because a judge determined that the information provided supported the belief that a crime had been committed and evidence was likely to be found there.

. And is so should the items seized under that warrant be returned?

Once the items are no longer needed as evidence, they can be returned to the owner. However to obtain the firearm the owner will have to produce evidence that they can legally possess a firearm.

 

[mightymoose]

you're going to need to be MUCH more clear about what's happening and who's who.

Baby grazed by bullet fired through apartment wall in Oceanside